On Thu, Nov 08, 2007 at 11:28:32PM +0100, Andre Poenitz wrote:
On Thu, Nov 08, 2007 at 11:07:29PM +0100, Enrico Forestieri wrote:
it would be cumbersome changing each instance of something like
ws.os() ' ';
or
ws.os() '\n';
in that way. And someone
On Thu, Nov 01, 2007 at 07:37:26PM +0100, Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
Andre Poenitz wrote:
On Wed, Oct 31, 2007 at 06:25:31PM +0100, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
Abdelrazak Younes [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If somebody use the docstream with latin8 character we will have
On Thu, Nov 08, 2007 at 11:07:29PM +0100, Enrico Forestieri wrote:
it would be cumbersome changing each instance of something like
ws.os() ' ';
or
ws.os() '\n';
in that way. And someone will forgot that and will use one of the
above.
But we'd get a compile (or
On Thu, Nov 08, 2007 at 10:59:40PM +0100, Andre Poenitz wrote:
On Thu, Nov 01, 2007 at 07:37:26PM +0100, Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
Andre Poenitz wrote:
On Wed, Oct 31, 2007 at 06:25:31PM +0100, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
Abdelrazak Younes [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Andre Poenitz wrote:
On Thu, Nov 01, 2007 at 07:37:26PM +0100, Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
Andre Poenitz wrote:
On Wed, Oct 31, 2007 at 06:25:31PM +0100, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
Abdelrazak Younes [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If somebody use the docstream with latin8
On Thu, Nov 08, 2007 at 11:28:32PM +0100, Andre Poenitz wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 08, 2007 at 11:07:29PM +0100, Enrico Forestieri wrote:
> > it would be cumbersome changing each instance of something like
> >
> >ws.os() << ' ';
> >
> > or
> >
> >ws.os() << '\n';
> >
> > in
On Thu, Nov 01, 2007 at 07:37:26PM +0100, Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
> Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
>> Andre Poenitz wrote:
>>> On Wed, Oct 31, 2007 at 06:25:31PM +0100, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
Abdelrazak Younes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> If somebody use the docstream with latin8
On Thu, Nov 08, 2007 at 11:07:29PM +0100, Enrico Forestieri wrote:
> it would be cumbersome changing each instance of something like
>
>ws.os() << ' ';
>
> or
>
>ws.os() << '\n';
>
> in that way. And someone will forgot that and will use one of the
> above.
But we'd get
On Thu, Nov 08, 2007 at 10:59:40PM +0100, Andre Poenitz wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 01, 2007 at 07:37:26PM +0100, Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
> > Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
> >> Andre Poenitz wrote:
> >>> On Wed, Oct 31, 2007 at 06:25:31PM +0100, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> Abdelrazak Younes <[EMAIL
Andre Poenitz wrote:
On Thu, Nov 01, 2007 at 07:37:26PM +0100, Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
Andre Poenitz wrote:
On Wed, Oct 31, 2007 at 06:25:31PM +0100, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
Abdelrazak Younes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
If somebody use the docstream with
Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
As for adding the possibility to output an unsigned char to the
docstream I think this buy us absolutely nothing and that it is not even
worth supporting.
How about the attached patch?
Jürgen
Index: src/insets/InsetTabular.cpp
Juergen Spitzmueller wrote:
Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
As for adding the possibility to output an unsigned char to the
docstream I think this buy us absolutely nothing and that it is not even
worth supporting.
How about the attached patch?
That should do. But I personally prefer you first
On Thu, Nov 01, 2007 at 03:54:06PM +0100, Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
Juergen Spitzmueller wrote:
Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
As for adding the possibility to output an unsigned char to the
docstream I think this buy us absolutely nothing and that it is not even
worth supporting.
How
Enrico Forestieri wrote:
It also doesn't work on Windows and FreeBSD, for example. I think it
would be embarrassing explaining it, as this would imply recognizing a
basic ignorance about C++, and this should not be the case.
You refer to my first or my second patch? If to the latter, please
Enrico Forestieri wrote:
On Thu, Nov 01, 2007 at 03:54:06PM +0100, Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
Juergen Spitzmueller wrote:
Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
As for adding the possibility to output an unsigned char to the
docstream I think this buy us absolutely nothing and that it is not even
worth
Juergen Spitzmueller wrote:
Enrico Forestieri wrote:
It also doesn't work on Windows and FreeBSD, for example. I think it
would be embarrassing explaining it, as this would imply recognizing a
basic ignorance about C++, and this should not be the case.
You refer to my first or my second
Andre Poenitz wrote:
On Wed, Oct 31, 2007 at 06:25:31PM +0100, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
Abdelrazak Younes [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If somebody use the docstream with latin8 character we will have bugs
for sure.
How could we forbid 8bit chars to operator? By implementing a
private
On Thu, Nov 01, 2007 at 05:55:49PM +0100, Juergen Spitzmueller wrote:
Enrico Forestieri wrote:
It also doesn't work on Windows and FreeBSD, for example. I think it
would be embarrassing explaining it, as this would imply recognizing a
basic ignorance about C++, and this should not be the
Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
I apply a combination of your two patch Juergen. Enrico might think this
is due to ignorance about C++ but this is just ignorance about a bug in
the odocstream.
For the time being, I just committed my second patch to branch. If Enrico
confirms your char-char_type
Enrico Forestieri wrote:
If you think so, then a combination of the two patches is ok.
You mean what Abdel committed to trunk?
Jürgen
On Thu, Nov 01, 2007 at 05:20:17PM +0100, Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
Enrico Forestieri wrote:
On Thu, Nov 01, 2007 at 03:54:06PM +0100, Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
Juergen Spitzmueller wrote:
Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
As for adding the possibility to output an unsigned char to the
On Thu, Nov 01, 2007 at 06:05:04PM +0100, Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
Juergen Spitzmueller wrote:
Enrico Forestieri wrote:
It also doesn't work on Windows and FreeBSD, for example. I think it
would be embarrassing explaining it, as this would imply recognizing a
basic ignorance about
Enrico Forestieri wrote:
On Thu, Nov 01, 2007 at 05:20:17PM +0100, Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
Enrico Forestieri wrote:
On Thu, Nov 01, 2007 at 03:54:06PM +0100, Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
Juergen Spitzmueller wrote:
Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
As for adding the possibility to output an unsigned
On Thu, Nov 01, 2007 at 07:11:05PM +0100, Juergen Spitzmueller wrote:
Enrico Forestieri wrote:
If you think so, then a combination of the two patches is ok.
You mean what Abdel committed to trunk?
Yes, that solves this bug. Now waiting for the next bug associated
to unsigned chars and
Enrico Forestieri wrote:
On Thu, Nov 01, 2007 at 06:05:04PM +0100, Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
Juergen Spitzmueller wrote:
Enrico Forestieri wrote:
It also doesn't work on Windows and FreeBSD, for example. I think it
would be embarrassing explaining it, as this would imply recognizing a
basic
Juergen Spitzmueller wrote:
Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
I apply a combination of your two patch Juergen. Enrico might think this
is due to ignorance about C++ but this is just ignorance about a bug in
the odocstream.
For the time being, I just committed my second patch to branch. If Enrico
Enrico Forestieri wrote:
On Thu, Nov 01, 2007 at 07:11:05PM +0100, Juergen Spitzmueller wrote:
Enrico Forestieri wrote:
If you think so, then a combination of the two patches is ok.
You mean what Abdel committed to trunk?
Yes, that solves this bug. Now waiting for the next bug associated
Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
Andre Poenitz wrote:
On Wed, Oct 31, 2007 at 06:25:31PM +0100, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
Abdelrazak Younes [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If somebody use the docstream with latin8 character we will have bugs
for sure.
How could we forbid 8bit chars to operator? By
Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
I am just a C++ ignorant but I am reasonably confident my change will
work on all platforms. But your change to branch might not be enough...
After Enrico's explanations, I'm just about backporting your fix. And please
stop that ignorance discourse ;-)
Jürgen
On Thu, Nov 01, 2007 at 07:24:04PM +0100, Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
I must say I am disappointed by your attitude Enrico, I just
don't understand why you are so sarcastic.
Maybe I am just mean. Please accept my apologies.
--
Enrico
On Thu, Nov 01, 2007 at 07:30:50PM +0100, Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
Enrico Forestieri wrote:
On Thu, Nov 01, 2007 at 07:11:05PM +0100, Juergen Spitzmueller wrote:
Enrico Forestieri wrote:
If you think so, then a combination of the two patches is ok.
You mean what Abdel committed to
Enrico Forestieri wrote:
On Thu, Nov 01, 2007 at 07:24:04PM +0100, Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
I must say I am disappointed by your attitude Enrico, I just
don't understand why you are so sarcastic.
Maybe I am just mean. Please accept my apologies.
And accept mine.
Abdel.
Enrico Forestieri wrote:
On Thu, Nov 01, 2007 at 07:30:50PM +0100, Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
Enrico Forestieri wrote:
On Thu, Nov 01, 2007 at 07:11:05PM +0100, Juergen Spitzmueller wrote:
Enrico Forestieri wrote:
If you think so, then a combination of the two patches is ok.
You mean what
On Thu, Nov 01, 2007 at 07:37:26PM +0100, Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
Andre Poenitz wrote:
On Wed, Oct 31, 2007 at 06:25:31PM +0100, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
Abdelrazak Younes [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If somebody use the docstream with latin8 character we will have
On Thu, Nov 01, 2007 at 08:57:40PM +0100, Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
Is that Myshkin?
In latex, it would be My\v{s}kin, but my ignorance didn't let me use
the correct transliteration ;-) Now let's stop here and go forward.
--
Enrico
Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
> As for adding the possibility to output an unsigned char to the
> docstream I think this buy us absolutely nothing and that it is not even
> worth supporting.
How about the attached patch?
Jürgen
Index: src/insets/InsetTabular.cpp
Juergen Spitzmueller wrote:
Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
As for adding the possibility to output an unsigned char to the
docstream I think this buy us absolutely nothing and that it is not even
worth supporting.
How about the attached patch?
That should do. But I personally prefer you first
On Thu, Nov 01, 2007 at 03:54:06PM +0100, Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
> Juergen Spitzmueller wrote:
> > Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
> >
> >> As for adding the possibility to output an unsigned char to the
> >> docstream I think this buy us absolutely nothing and that it is not even
> >> worth
Enrico Forestieri wrote:
> It also doesn't work on Windows and FreeBSD, for example. I think it
> would be embarrassing explaining it, as this would imply recognizing a
> basic ignorance about C++, and this should not be the case.
You refer to my first or my second patch? If to the latter,
Enrico Forestieri wrote:
On Thu, Nov 01, 2007 at 03:54:06PM +0100, Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
Juergen Spitzmueller wrote:
Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
As for adding the possibility to output an unsigned char to the
docstream I think this buy us absolutely nothing and that it is not even
worth
Juergen Spitzmueller wrote:
Enrico Forestieri wrote:
It also doesn't work on Windows and FreeBSD, for example. I think it
would be embarrassing explaining it, as this would imply recognizing a
basic ignorance about C++, and this should not be the case.
You refer to my first or my second
Andre Poenitz wrote:
On Wed, Oct 31, 2007 at 06:25:31PM +0100, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
Abdelrazak Younes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
If somebody use the docstream with latin8 character we will have bugs
for sure.
How could we forbid 8bit chars to operator
On Thu, Nov 01, 2007 at 05:55:49PM +0100, Juergen Spitzmueller wrote:
> Enrico Forestieri wrote:
>
> > It also doesn't work on Windows and FreeBSD, for example. I think it
> > would be embarrassing explaining it, as this would imply recognizing a
> > basic ignorance about C++, and this should
Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
> I apply a combination of your two patch Juergen. Enrico might think this
> is due to ignorance about C++ but this is just ignorance about a bug in
> the odocstream.
For the time being, I just committed my second patch to branch. If Enrico
confirms your char->char_type
Enrico Forestieri wrote:
> If you think so, then a combination of the two patches is ok.
You mean what Abdel committed to trunk?
Jürgen
On Thu, Nov 01, 2007 at 05:20:17PM +0100, Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
> Enrico Forestieri wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 01, 2007 at 03:54:06PM +0100, Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
> >
> >> Juergen Spitzmueller wrote:
> >>> Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
> >>>
> As for adding the possibility to output an
On Thu, Nov 01, 2007 at 06:05:04PM +0100, Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
> Juergen Spitzmueller wrote:
> > Enrico Forestieri wrote:
> >
> >> It also doesn't work on Windows and FreeBSD, for example. I think it
> >> would be embarrassing explaining it, as this would imply recognizing a
> >> basic
Enrico Forestieri wrote:
On Thu, Nov 01, 2007 at 05:20:17PM +0100, Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
Enrico Forestieri wrote:
On Thu, Nov 01, 2007 at 03:54:06PM +0100, Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
Juergen Spitzmueller wrote:
Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
As for adding the possibility to output an unsigned
On Thu, Nov 01, 2007 at 07:11:05PM +0100, Juergen Spitzmueller wrote:
> Enrico Forestieri wrote:
>
> > If you think so, then a combination of the two patches is ok.
>
> You mean what Abdel committed to trunk?
Yes, that solves this bug. Now waiting for the next bug associated
to unsigned chars
Enrico Forestieri wrote:
On Thu, Nov 01, 2007 at 06:05:04PM +0100, Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
Juergen Spitzmueller wrote:
Enrico Forestieri wrote:
It also doesn't work on Windows and FreeBSD, for example. I think it
would be embarrassing explaining it, as this would imply recognizing a
basic
Juergen Spitzmueller wrote:
Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
I apply a combination of your two patch Juergen. Enrico might think this
is due to ignorance about C++ but this is just ignorance about a bug in
the odocstream.
For the time being, I just committed my second patch to branch. If Enrico
Enrico Forestieri wrote:
On Thu, Nov 01, 2007 at 07:11:05PM +0100, Juergen Spitzmueller wrote:
Enrico Forestieri wrote:
If you think so, then a combination of the two patches is ok.
You mean what Abdel committed to trunk?
Yes, that solves this bug. Now waiting for the next bug associated
Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
Andre Poenitz wrote:
On Wed, Oct 31, 2007 at 06:25:31PM +0100, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
Abdelrazak Younes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
If somebody use the docstream with latin8 character we will have bugs
for sure.
How could we forbid 8bit chars to
Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
> I am just a C++ ignorant but I am reasonably confident my change will
> work on all platforms. But your change to branch might not be enough...
After Enrico's explanations, I'm just about backporting your fix. And please
stop that ignorance discourse ;-)
Jürgen
On Thu, Nov 01, 2007 at 07:24:04PM +0100, Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
> I must say I am disappointed by your attitude Enrico, I just
> don't understand why you are so sarcastic.
Maybe I am just mean. Please accept my apologies.
--
Enrico
On Thu, Nov 01, 2007 at 07:30:50PM +0100, Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
> Enrico Forestieri wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 01, 2007 at 07:11:05PM +0100, Juergen Spitzmueller wrote:
> >
> >> Enrico Forestieri wrote:
> >>
> >>> If you think so, then a combination of the two patches is ok.
> >> You mean what
Enrico Forestieri wrote:
On Thu, Nov 01, 2007 at 07:24:04PM +0100, Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
I must say I am disappointed by your attitude Enrico, I just
don't understand why you are so sarcastic.
Maybe I am just mean. Please accept my apologies.
And accept mine.
Abdel.
Enrico Forestieri wrote:
On Thu, Nov 01, 2007 at 07:30:50PM +0100, Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
Enrico Forestieri wrote:
On Thu, Nov 01, 2007 at 07:11:05PM +0100, Juergen Spitzmueller wrote:
Enrico Forestieri wrote:
If you think so, then a combination of the two patches is ok.
You mean what
On Thu, Nov 01, 2007 at 07:37:26PM +0100, Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
> Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
>> Andre Poenitz wrote:
>>> On Wed, Oct 31, 2007 at 06:25:31PM +0100, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
Abdelrazak Younes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> If somebody use the docstream with latin8
On Thu, Nov 01, 2007 at 08:57:40PM +0100, Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
> Is that Myshkin?
In latex, it would be My\v{s}kin, but my ignorance didn't let me use
the correct transliteration ;-) Now let's stop here and go forward.
--
Enrico
Enrico Forestieri wrote:
On Tue, Oct 30, 2007 at 06:26:45PM +0100, Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote:
http://bugzilla.lyx.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4147
The bug is the result of an encoding failure (use of char instead of
char_type) that results in an unwanted conversion of a tabulator ('\t') to
the digit
Enrico Forestieri wrote:
This is not going to work on systems where sizeof(wchar_t) == 2.
I see.
I have attached a better fix to bug 4147 on bugzilla.
AFAICS, it looks good. Anyway, try to get a feedback from Georg or anyone
else who is familiar with this stuff, and commit afterwards.
On Wed, Oct 31, 2007 at 08:22:44AM +0100, Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
Enrico Forestieri wrote:
On Tue, Oct 30, 2007 at 06:26:45PM +0100, Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote:
http://bugzilla.lyx.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4147
The bug is the result of an encoding failure (use of char instead of
char_type)
Enrico Forestieri wrote:
On Wed, Oct 31, 2007 at 08:22:44AM +0100, Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
Enrico Forestieri wrote:
On Tue, Oct 30, 2007 at 06:26:45PM +0100, Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote:
http://bugzilla.lyx.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4147
The bug is the result of an encoding failure (use of char
On Wed, Oct 31, 2007 at 01:29:51PM +0100, Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
Enrico Forestieri wrote:
On Wed, Oct 31, 2007 at 08:22:44AM +0100, Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
Enrico Forestieri wrote:
On Tue, Oct 30, 2007 at 06:26:45PM +0100, Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote:
Enrico Forestieri [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Not really. UCS-4 code points from 0x to 0x00ff exactly correspond
to latin-1 code points. So
unsigned char c = 0xb5;
os.put(c);
gives me a 'µ' character, and the assertion above is wrong.
Maybe you have utf8 in mind.
We should not
Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
Enrico Forestieri [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Not really. UCS-4 code points from 0x to 0x00ff exactly correspond
to latin-1 code points. So
unsigned char c = 0xb5;
os.put(c);
gives me a 'µ' character, and the assertion above is wrong.
Maybe you have utf8
On Wed, Oct 31, 2007 at 03:13:56PM +0100, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
Enrico Forestieri [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Not really. UCS-4 code points from 0x to 0x00ff exactly correspond
to latin-1 code points. So
unsigned char c = 0xb5;
os.put(c);
gives me a 'µ' character,
Enrico Forestieri [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I don't understand either points. Why
char_type c = 0xb5;
os.put(c);
would be ok, but
unsigned char c = 0xb5;
os.put(c);
would not?
The first one is a wide char, so it is obviously unicode-encoded.
The second one is a 8bit
On Wed, Oct 31, 2007 at 04:20:56PM +0100, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
Enrico Forestieri [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I don't understand either points. Why
char_type c = 0xb5;
os.put(c);
would be ok, but
unsigned char c = 0xb5;
os.put(c);
would not?
The
On Wed, Oct 31, 2007 at 03:41:50PM +0100, Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
Enrico Forestieri [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Not really. UCS-4 code points from 0x to 0x00ff exactly correspond
to latin-1 code points. So
unsigned char c = 0xb5;
os.put(c);
Enrico Forestieri [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Every character you output to a docstream must be ucs4 encoded.
If its code point can be contained in an unsigned char, fine,
otherwise you need a larger type.
Hmm. I think this is a recipe for hard to find bugs.
JMarc
Enrico Forestieri wrote:
On Wed, Oct 31, 2007 at 03:41:50PM +0100, Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
Enrico Forestieri [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Not really. UCS-4 code points from 0x to 0x00ff exactly correspond
to latin-1 code points. So
unsigned char c = 0xb5;
Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
Enrico Forestieri [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Every character you output to a docstream must be ucs4 encoded.
If its code point can be contained in an unsigned char, fine,
otherwise you need a larger type.
Hmm. I think this is a recipe for hard to find bugs.
Abdelrazak Younes [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If somebody use the docstream with latin8 character we will have bugs
for sure.
How could we forbid 8bit chars to operator? By implementing a
private version?
JMarc
On Wed, Oct 31, 2007 at 06:25:31PM +0100, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
Abdelrazak Younes [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If somebody use the docstream with latin8 character we will have bugs
for sure.
How could we forbid 8bit chars to operator? By implementing a
private version?
This is
On Wed, Oct 31, 2007 at 06:14:35PM +0100, Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
Enrico Forestieri [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Every character you output to a docstream must be ucs4 encoded.
If its code point can be contained in an unsigned char, fine,
otherwise you need a
On Wed, Oct 31, 2007 at 06:18:57PM +0100, Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
Enrico Forestieri wrote:
On Wed, Oct 31, 2007 at 03:41:50PM +0100, Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
Enrico Forestieri [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Not really. UCS-4 code points from 0x to 0x00ff
On Wed, Oct 31, 2007 at 05:32:21PM +0100, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
Enrico Forestieri [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Every character you output to a docstream must be ucs4 encoded.
If its code point can be contained in an unsigned char, fine,
otherwise you need a larger type.
Hmm. I think
On Wed, Oct 31, 2007 at 06:25:31PM +0100, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
Abdelrazak Younes [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If somebody use the docstream with latin8 character we will have bugs
for sure.
How could we forbid 8bit chars to operator? By implementing a
private version?
Sort of.
Enrico Forestieri wrote:
On Wed, Oct 31, 2007 at 06:14:35PM +0100, Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
Enrico Forestieri [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Every character you output to a docstream must be ucs4 encoded.
If its code point can be contained in an unsigned char, fine,
Enrico Forestieri wrote:
On Tue, Oct 30, 2007 at 06:26:45PM +0100, Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote:
http://bugzilla.lyx.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4147
The bug is the result of an encoding failure (use of char instead of
char_type) that results in an unwanted conversion of a tabulator ('\t') to
the digit
Enrico Forestieri wrote:
> This is not going to work on systems where sizeof(wchar_t) == 2.
I see.
> I have attached a better fix to bug 4147 on bugzilla.
AFAICS, it looks good. Anyway, try to get a feedback from Georg or anyone
else who is familiar with this stuff, and commit afterwards.
On Wed, Oct 31, 2007 at 08:22:44AM +0100, Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
> Enrico Forestieri wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 30, 2007 at 06:26:45PM +0100, Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote:
> >> http://bugzilla.lyx.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4147
> >>
> >> The bug is the result of an encoding failure (use of char instead of
>
Enrico Forestieri wrote:
On Wed, Oct 31, 2007 at 08:22:44AM +0100, Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
Enrico Forestieri wrote:
On Tue, Oct 30, 2007 at 06:26:45PM +0100, Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote:
http://bugzilla.lyx.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4147
The bug is the result of an encoding failure (use of char
On Wed, Oct 31, 2007 at 01:29:51PM +0100, Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
> Enrico Forestieri wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 31, 2007 at 08:22:44AM +0100, Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
> >> Enrico Forestieri wrote:
> >>> On Tue, Oct 30, 2007 at 06:26:45PM +0100, Jürgen Spitzmüller wrote:
>
Enrico Forestieri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Not really. UCS-4 code points from 0x to 0x00ff exactly correspond
> to latin-1 code points. So
>
>unsigned char c = 0xb5;
>os.put(c);
>
> gives me a 'µ' character, and the assertion above is wrong.
> Maybe you have utf8 in mind.
We
Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
Enrico Forestieri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Not really. UCS-4 code points from 0x to 0x00ff exactly correspond
to latin-1 code points. So
unsigned char c = 0xb5;
os.put(c);
gives me a 'µ' character, and the assertion above is wrong.
Maybe you have utf8
On Wed, Oct 31, 2007 at 03:13:56PM +0100, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> Enrico Forestieri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Not really. UCS-4 code points from 0x to 0x00ff exactly correspond
> > to latin-1 code points. So
> >
> >unsigned char c = 0xb5;
> >os.put(c);
> >
> > gives me a
Enrico Forestieri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I don't understand either points. Why
>
> char_type c = 0xb5;
> os.put(c);
>
> would be ok, but
>
> unsigned char c = 0xb5;
> os.put(c);
>
> would not?
The first one is a wide char, so it is obviously unicode-encoded.
The second
On Wed, Oct 31, 2007 at 04:20:56PM +0100, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> Enrico Forestieri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > I don't understand either points. Why
> >
> > char_type c = 0xb5;
> > os.put(c);
> >
> > would be ok, but
> >
> > unsigned char c = 0xb5;
> > os.put(c);
> >
On Wed, Oct 31, 2007 at 03:41:50PM +0100, Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
> Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> > Enrico Forestieri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> >> Not really. UCS-4 code points from 0x to 0x00ff exactly correspond
> >> to latin-1 code points. So
> >>
> >>unsigned char c = 0xb5;
>
Enrico Forestieri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Every character you output to a docstream must be ucs4 encoded.
> If its code point can be contained in an unsigned char, fine,
> otherwise you need a larger type.
Hmm. I think this is a recipe for hard to find bugs.
JMarc
Enrico Forestieri wrote:
On Wed, Oct 31, 2007 at 03:41:50PM +0100, Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
Enrico Forestieri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Not really. UCS-4 code points from 0x to 0x00ff exactly correspond
to latin-1 code points. So
unsigned char c = 0xb5;
Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
Enrico Forestieri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Every character you output to a docstream must be ucs4 encoded.
If its code point can be contained in an unsigned char, fine,
otherwise you need a larger type.
Hmm. I think this is a recipe for hard to find bugs.
Abdelrazak Younes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> If somebody use the docstream with latin8 character we will have bugs
> for sure.
How could we forbid 8bit chars to operator<
On Wed, Oct 31, 2007 at 06:25:31PM +0100, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> Abdelrazak Younes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > If somebody use the docstream with latin8 character we will have bugs
> > for sure.
>
> How could we forbid 8bit chars to operator< private version?
This is going to
On Wed, Oct 31, 2007 at 06:14:35PM +0100, Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
> Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> > Enrico Forestieri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> >> Every character you output to a docstream must be ucs4 encoded.
> >> If its code point can be contained in an unsigned char, fine,
> >>
On Wed, Oct 31, 2007 at 06:18:57PM +0100, Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
> Enrico Forestieri wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 31, 2007 at 03:41:50PM +0100, Abdelrazak Younes wrote:
> >> Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> >>> Enrico Forestieri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >>>
> Not really. UCS-4 code points from
On Wed, Oct 31, 2007 at 05:32:21PM +0100, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> Enrico Forestieri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Every character you output to a docstream must be ucs4 encoded.
> > If its code point can be contained in an unsigned char, fine,
> > otherwise you need a larger type.
>
>
1 - 100 of 106 matches
Mail list logo
